Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage On Hold In Utah

[Sombeech]

I'm just sayin' a lot of facebook statuses went silent about the dude

[reverse_dyno]

Conservative political activists gather to 'defend traditional marriage':

Ruzicka said in addition to speaking out, proponents of traditional marriage must rely on God. "That's how we win this thing, we fast and pray," she said.

------------------------------------
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage. Seems like all the arguments against SS marriage always have something to do with God in the end. Check out the above article to see what I mean. I am not taking a position on SS marriage! Just pointing out an observation I think is interesting.

[Sombeech]

------------------------------------
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage. Seems like all the arguments against SS marriage always have something to do with God in the end. Check out the above article to see what I mean..

I've never opposed gay marriage while citing any religious teaching at all. So atheism nor creationism are not necessary vantage points, it can be completely political opinion.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Scott P]

I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage.

Yes, there are. In my own words from knowing much about human evolution, here are some very summarized reasons for traditional marriage from a strictly scientific standpoint. PS, although science prefers terms like mating, copulation, et al, I just use the term “having sex” because it humanizes everything. If you don’t believe in evolution (I do, but am not an atheist), feel free to replace “evolve” with “created because” when reading though this.

PS, I hope no one finds the below offensive. It is only meant to answer the question asked above. I hope people found it interesting. I will only used scientific principles rather than feelings and opinions.

From a strictly scientific standpoint, generally the most stable conditions to raise a child are in intact relationships between a man and a woman. Using scientific studies, it can be proven that heterosexual marriage is good for society. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, rather than a political one, I don't know of any benefit to society for a gay marriage. If there is one, I haven’t read about it and can’t think of what it would be. If anyone knows what the benefit would be from a strictly evolutionary standpoint. (PS, lest anyone misunderstand, homosexuality is natural and has genetic connections. It is also nothing new).

Don’t misunderstand the above though, because statistics wise, the decline of marriage can be blamed more on heterosexuals than homosexuals. One needs only to look at the figures on the number of broken homes of heterosexual couples to confirm this. If people want to go out there and protest homosexual marriage they should also be out there protesting pre-marital sex and infidelity among heterosexual couples as well. Because children are more likely to be involved with homosexual couples, from a scientific standpoint, this should be much more concerning.

Anyway, continuing on from the scientific viewpoint, most (perhaps all?) non religious historians believe that religion, morals, and marriage evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes. From an evolutionary standpoint, survival of the fittest or survival of an individual is only partially correct.

The real evolutionary “goal” is not necessarily survive as an individual, but to propagate one’s genes. Survival is only one strategy in accomplishing this. For example, in some species of spiders and praying mantises, the female actually eats the male while they are having sex. Moreover, the male makes no attempt to escape, and in fact with some species the male will actually tilt his head towards the female and invite her to eat him (Google this and search by video for some morbid, but fascinating watching)! Why is this? It is because the urge to propagate one’s genes is greater than the survival of an individual. Letting the female willingly eat the male has several advantages to the survival of the mentioned species. One, the females are typically larger in order to produce many eggs and the male’s body provides nourishment in order to produce more eggs. Two, letting the female much on your head or body while having sex distracts her and allows the male to have sex uninhibited and she is kept completely occupied during the love making session.

The above strategy works for some species such as praying mantises or some spiders because in comparison to their size, the territory of these creatures is huge and the chances of running into a female are fairly slim and the chance of running into a second female (even if the first one didn’t eat him) are even slimmer. So, the best change of propagating ones genes is to let the female eat you, for the reasons above, while having sex. Since the chances of running into a second female are very slim, it’s better for the survival of the species for the male to take advantage of the first encounter with a female and let her eat him. If not, the chances of running into a second female are slim and the rest of the male’s life is wasted because he didn’t pass on his genes.

Anyway, lucky for us human males, that’s not how the propagation of our genes has evolved to where it is now. With the human species, most males have more than a once in a lifetime chance of having sex and luckily for us as well, a female couldn’t consume enough of us in one sitting to insure the survival of offspring.

Our sexuality evolved differently. We are one of the very, very few species where the female hides her fertile times. Even a female human (without technological help) doesn’t know when she is always fertile. We are one of the very few species that will have sex just for fun. Even an advanced species such as a dog will not have sex when the female is not fertile. We are also the only species that goes through menopause. Why is this?

From an evolutionary standpoint, there are reasons for all three and they are all connected. Females (unintentionally) hide their fertility because it gives the species the best chances to propagate. But why? Doesn't this seem counter productive? Actually, it isn't. What if a female was only interested in sex during her fertile times? How likely would the male be stick close by at all times? Females that hide their fertility and instead are ready for sex at anytime have a better chance of having a male close by for a longer period. The more advanced the species, the more helpless the offspring is at birth. Most animals are ready to be out fending for themselves in a much shorter time period than for humans. A second parent, especially before modern societies and cities was almost essential for any offspring to survive. In human terms, to put it in layman’s terms, when the can have sex, daddy stays home. It is theorized that distant ancestors that didn’t hide their fertility cycles died off and only the females that hid their fertility cycles survived, and thus the genes did as well.

The second uniqueness of having sex just for fun is a very rare trait in the animal kingdom. Most species in the animal kingdom can’t afford to have sex for fun or even for long periods. Most animals are in danger when they are having sex because they are vulnerable and distracted. They can easily be preyed upon while distracted. Sex is a waste of valuable energy for most species. Energy wise, the production of sperm is costly. Sex takes time that could be devoted to finding food. For these reasons, sex serves no purposes in most species unless the female is fertile.

So, from a scientific standpoint, love, recreational sex, and the male female parental relationships where a male stays with a female in order to raise a child evolved (or was created if you prefer) in order to allow the most stable conditions to propagate genes and to raise a family. Sex evolved or was created to strengthen bonds between mates.


So, continuing on, why do human females go through menopause rather than remain fertile into an old age like almost all other species do? It is because from a propagation standpoint, and due to the fact that human children are so helpless for several years, it is better for grandparents of the human species to devote energy into assisting in raising offspring of younger and stronger individuals. For the human species, the benefit of doing this is greater than the benefit of reproducing in a weaker state.


Atheist historians believe that religion, marriage, and morals were evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes for the reasons above and we can see that the human species is very unique when it comes to sexual habits.

From the evolutionary standpoint, morals are still applicable because (although modern technology and customs may mean it less so) it is detrimental to the species that a male stays home in order to raise a children. Infidelity has always remained a scientific problem. On one hand, as an individual, a male has a biological urge to propagate his genes by numbers and to produce as many offspring as possible (just as some males have homosexual tendencies). On the other hand, from a species propagation and survival standpoint, the best environment to raise those offspring is to have the father to stick around and support the mother and children. Infidelity and chances for wandering lessens the chances that the male will be supportive of his mate and their offspring (as mentioned this is the primary reason that females are ready for sex during non-fertile periods). From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it is believed the morals and marriage developed as a way to counterbalance the two for the survival of the species.

So yes, from a scientific standpoint there are arguments on why supporting traditional marriages and shunning infidelity is important. Using science, it can be proven that traditional marriage and fidelity is important to society. It can be proven scientifically that the human race should encourage traditional marriage.

No matter which angle you look at it, from either science, evolution, religion or even religion/evolution, the purpose of marriage from either an evolutionary, atheist, or religious standpoint is to provide the most stable environment for the raising of offspring. From a strictly scientific standpoint, marriage didn't evolve to be for any other purpose other than this. It wasn't for tax breaks, inheritance, etc., but developed for this sole purpose.

Anyway, there is a whole lot more to the above. This is just a very brief summary. Scientist/anthropologists have written volumes and volumes on the subject for those that want to delve further.

Also, science can’t answer questions as to what the government’s role is in all this. Science also can’t answer the question as to whether or not propagating the human race is even important. Science doesn’t try to answer the question such as “what is the purpose of life” other than to propagate a species. It can answer the question of what rights an individual has. All of those are questions that can’t be answered scientifically.

I try and stay away from most discussions, but since the question was asked if there were any non-religious arguments against it, I answered the question. If anyone knows of any errors, items needing more explaining, or knows a scientific reason for the development of gay marriage, please feel free to point out or discuss.

[ratagonia]

Yes, there are. In my own words from knowing much about human evolution, here are some very summarized reasons for traditional marriage from a strictly scientific standpoint. PS, although science prefers terms like mating, copulation, et al, I just use the term “having sex” because it humanizes everything. If you don’t believe in evolution (I do, but am not an atheist), feel free to replace “evolve” with “created because” when reading though this.

PS, I hope no one finds the below offensive. It is only meant to answer the question asked above. I hope people found it interesting. I will only used scientific principles rather than feelings and opinions.

From a strictly scientific standpoint, generally the most stable conditions to raise a child are in intact relationships between a man and a woman. Using scientific studies, it can be proven that heterosexual marriage is good for society. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, rather than a political one, I don't know of any benefit to society for a gay marriage. If there is one, I haven’t read about it and can’t think of what it would be. If anyone knows what the benefit would be from a strictly evolutionary standpoint. (PS, lest anyone misunderstand, homosexuality is natural and has genetic connections. It is also nothing new).

Don’t misunderstand the above though, because statistics wise, the decline of marriage can be blamed more on heterosexuals than homosexuals. One needs only to look at the figures on the number of broken homes of heterosexual couples to confirm this. If people want to go out there and protest homosexual marriage they should also be out there protesting pre-marital sex and infidelity among heterosexual couples as well. Because children are more likely to be involved with homosexual couples, from a scientific standpoint, this should be much more concerning.

Anyway, continuing on from the scientific viewpoint, most (perhaps all?) non religious historians believe that religion, morals, and marriage evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes. From an evolutionary standpoint, survival of the fittest or survival of an individual is only partially correct.

The real evolutionary “goal” is not necessarily survive as an individual, but to propagate one’s genes. Survival is only one strategy in accomplishing this. For example, in some species of spiders and praying mantises, the female actually eats the male while they are having sex. Moreover, the male makes no attempt to escape, and in fact with some species the male will actually tilt his head towards the female and invite her to eat him (Google this and search by video for some morbid, but fascinating watching)! Why is this? It is because the urge to propagate one’s genes is greater than the survival of an individual. Letting the female willingly eat the male has several advantages to the survival of the mentioned species. One, the females are typically larger in order to produce many eggs and the male’s body provides nourishment in order to produce more eggs. Two, letting the female much on your head or body while having sex distracts her and allows the male to have sex uninhibited and she is kept completely occupied during the love making session.

The above strategy works for some species such as praying mantises or some spiders because in comparison to their size, the territory of these creatures is huge and the chances of running into a female are fairly slim and the chance of running into a second female (even if the first one didn’t eat him) are even slimmer. So, the best change of propagating ones genes is to let the female eat you, for the reasons above, while having sex. Since the chances of running into a second female are very slim, it’s better for the survival of the species for the male to take advantage of the first encounter with a female and let her eat him. If not, the chances of running into a second female are slim and the rest of the male’s life is wasted because he didn’t pass on his genes.

Anyway, lucky for us human males, that’s not how the propagation of our genes has evolved to where it is now. With the human species, most males have more than a once in a lifetime chance of having sex and luckily for us as well, a female couldn’t consume enough of us in one sitting to insure the survival of offspring.

Our sexuality evolved differently. We are one of the very, very few species where the female hides her fertile times. Even a female human (without technological help) doesn’t know when she is always fertile. We are one of the very few species that will have sex just for fun. Even an advanced species such as a dog will not have sex when the female is not fertile. We are also the only species that goes through menopause. Why is this?

From an evolutionary standpoint, there are reasons for all three and they are all connected. Females (unintentionally) hide their fertility because it gives the species the best chances to propagate. But why? Doesn't this seem counter productive? Actually, it isn't. What if a female was only interested in sex during her fertile times? How likely would the male be stick close by at all times? Females that hide their fertility and instead are ready for sex at anytime have a better chance of having a male close by for a longer period. The more advanced the species, the more helpless the offspring is at birth. Most animals are ready to be out fending for themselves in a much shorter time period than for humans. A second parent, especially before modern societies and cities was almost essential for any offspring to survive. In human terms, to put it in layman’s terms, when the can have sex, daddy stays home. It is theorized that distant ancestors that didn’t hide their fertility cycles died off and only the females that hid their fertility cycles survived, and thus the genes did as well.

The second uniqueness of having sex just for fun is a very rare trait in the animal kingdom. Most species in the animal kingdom can’t afford to have sex for fun or even for long periods. Most animals are in danger when they are having sex because they are vulnerable and distracted. They can easily be preyed upon while distracted. Sex is a waste of valuable energy for most species. Energy wise, the production of sperm is costly. Sex takes time that could be devoted to finding food. For these reasons, sex serves no purposes in most species unless the female is fertile.

So, from a scientific standpoint, love, recreational sex, and the male female parental relationships where a male stays with a female in order to raise a child evolved (or was created if you prefer) in order to allow the most stable conditions to propagate genes and to raise a family. Sex evolved or was created to strengthen bonds between mates.


So, continuing on, why do human females go through menopause rather than remain fertile into an old age like almost all other species do? It is because from a propagation standpoint, and due to the fact that human children are so helpless for several years, it is better for grandparents of the human species to devote energy into assisting in raising offspring of younger and stronger individuals. For the human species, the benefit of doing this is greater than the benefit of reproducing in a weaker state.


Atheist historians believe that religion, marriage, and morals were evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes for the reasons above and we can see that the human species is very unique when it comes to sexual habits.

From the evolutionary standpoint, morals are still applicable because (although modern technology and customs may mean it less so) it is detrimental to the species that a male stays home in order to raise a children. Infidelity has always remained a scientific problem. On one hand, as an individual, a male has a biological urge to propagate his genes by numbers and to produce as many offspring as possible (just as some males have homosexual tendencies). On the other hand, from a species propagation and survival standpoint, the best environment to raise those offspring is to have the father to stick around and support the mother and children. Infidelity and chances for wandering lessens the chances that the male will be supportive of his mate and their offspring (as mentioned this is the primary reason that females are ready for sex during non-fertile periods). From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it is believed the morals and marriage developed as a way to counterbalance the two for the survival of the species.

So yes, from a scientific standpoint there are arguments on why supporting traditional marriages and shunning infidelity is important. Using science, it can be proven that traditional marriage and fidelity is important to society. It can be proven scientifically that the human race should encourage traditional marriage.

No matter which angle you look at it, from either science, evolution, religion or even religion/evolution, the purpose of marriage from either an evolutionary, atheist, or religious standpoint is to provide the most stable environment for the raising of offspring. From a strictly scientific standpoint, marriage didn't evolve to be for any other purpose other than this. It wasn't for tax breaks, inheritance, etc., but developed for this sole purpose.

Anyway, there is a whole lot more to the above. This is just a very brief summary. Scientist/anthropologists have written volumes and volumes on the subject for those that want to delve further.

Also, science can’t answer questions as to what the government’s role is in all this. Science also can’t answer the question as to whether or not propagating the human race is even important. Science doesn’t try to answer the question such as “what is the purpose of life” other than to propagate a species. It can answer the question of what rights an individual has. All of those are questions that can’t be answered scientifically.

I try and stay away from most discussions, but since the question was asked if there were any non-religious arguments against it, I answered the question. If anyone knows of any errors, items needing more explaining, or knows a scientific reason for the development of gay marriage, please feel free to point out or discuss.

Have your read the Prop 8 California Decision, Scott? I would think you have not, as the "studies about children" argument was pretty well shot out of the water and blown to itty bitty pieces. ALL the studies that found that children of gay couples were worse off came from clearly biased sources. While studies carried out by actual (gay muslim socialist kenyan secularist msnbc-related) scientists found the opposite. So yes, your "science" is tainted. Your arguments from an evolutionary viewpoint are just that - conjecture not based in science. Don't call it science, it is just bushido with a confirmation bias big fat thumb on the scale. (Bushido being a euphemism.)

[DOSS]

Yes, there are. In my own words from knowing much about human evolution, here are some very summarized reasons for traditional marriage from a strictly scientific standpoint. PS, although science prefers terms like mating, copulation, et al, I just use the term “having sex” because it humanizes everything. If you don’t believe in evolution (I do, but am not an atheist), feel free to replace “evolve” with “created because” when reading though this.

PS, I hope no one finds the below offensive. It is only meant to answer the question asked above. I hope people found it interesting. I will only used scientific principles rather than feelings and opinions.

From a strictly scientific standpoint, generally the most stable conditions to raise a child are in intact relationships between a man and a woman. Using scientific studies, it can be proven that heterosexual marriage is good for society. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, rather than a political one, I don't know of any benefit to society for a gay marriage. If there is one, I haven’t read about it and can’t think of what it would be. If anyone knows what the benefit would be from a strictly evolutionary standpoint. (PS, lest anyone misunderstand, homosexuality is natural and has genetic connections. It is also nothing new).

Don’t misunderstand the above though, because statistics wise, the decline of marriage can be blamed more on heterosexuals than homosexuals. One needs only to look at the figures on the number of broken homes of heterosexual couples to confirm this. If people want to go out there and protest homosexual marriage they should also be out there protesting pre-marital sex and infidelity among heterosexual couples as well. Because children are more likely to be involved with homosexual couples, from a scientific standpoint, this should be much more concerning.

Anyway, continuing on from the scientific viewpoint, most (perhaps all?) non religious historians believe that religion, morals, and marriage evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes. From an evolutionary standpoint, survival of the fittest or survival of an individual is only partially correct.

The real evolutionary “goal” is not necessarily survive as an individual, but to propagate one’s genes. Survival is only one strategy in accomplishing this. For example, in some species of spiders and praying mantises, the female actually eats the male while they are having sex. Moreover, the male makes no attempt to escape, and in fact with some species the male will actually tilt his head towards the female and invite her to eat him (Google this and search by video for some morbid, but fascinating watching)! Why is this? It is because the urge to propagate one’s genes is greater than the survival of an individual. Letting the female willingly eat the male has several advantages to the survival of the mentioned species. One, the females are typically larger in order to produce many eggs and the male’s body provides nourishment in order to produce more eggs. Two, letting the female much on your head or body while having sex distracts her and allows the male to have sex uninhibited and she is kept completely occupied during the love making session.

The above strategy works for some species such as praying mantises or some spiders because in comparison to their size, the territory of these creatures is huge and the chances of running into a female are fairly slim and the chance of running into a second female (even if the first one didn’t eat him) are even slimmer. So, the best change of propagating ones genes is to let the female eat you, for the reasons above, while having sex. Since the chances of running into a second female are very slim, it’s better for the survival of the species for the male to take advantage of the first encounter with a female and let her eat him. If not, the chances of running into a second female are slim and the rest of the male’s life is wasted because he didn’t pass on his genes.

Anyway, lucky for us human males, that’s not how the propagation of our genes has evolved to where it is now. With the human species, most males have more than a once in a lifetime chance of having sex and luckily for us as well, a female couldn’t consume enough of us in one sitting to insure the survival of offspring.

Our sexuality evolved differently. We are one of the very, very few species where the female hides her fertile times. Even a female human (without technological help) doesn’t know when she is always fertile. We are one of the very few species that will have sex just for fun. Even an advanced species such as a dog will not have sex when the female is not fertile. We are also the only species that goes through menopause. Why is this?

From an evolutionary standpoint, there are reasons for all three and they are all connected. Females (unintentionally) hide their fertility because it gives the species the best chances to propagate. But why? Doesn't this seem counter productive? Actually, it isn't. What if a female was only interested in sex during her fertile times? How likely would the male be stick close by at all times? Females that hide their fertility and instead are ready for sex at anytime have a better chance of having a male close by for a longer period. The more advanced the species, the more helpless the offspring is at birth. Most animals are ready to be out fending for themselves in a much shorter time period than for humans. A second parent, especially before modern societies and cities was almost essential for any offspring to survive. In human terms, to put it in layman’s terms, when the can have sex, daddy stays home. It is theorized that distant ancestors that didn’t hide their fertility cycles died off and only the females that hid their fertility cycles survived, and thus the genes did as well.

The second uniqueness of having sex just for fun is a very rare trait in the animal kingdom. Most species in the animal kingdom can’t afford to have sex for fun or even for long periods. Most animals are in danger when they are having sex because they are vulnerable and distracted. They can easily be preyed upon while distracted. Sex is a waste of valuable energy for most species. Energy wise, the production of sperm is costly. Sex takes time that could be devoted to finding food. For these reasons, sex serves no purposes in most species unless the female is fertile.

So, from a scientific standpoint, love, recreational sex, and the male female parental relationships where a male stays with a female in order to raise a child evolved (or was created if you prefer) in order to allow the most stable conditions to propagate genes and to raise a family. Sex evolved or was created to strengthen bonds between mates.


So, continuing on, why do human females go through menopause rather than remain fertile into an old age like almost all other species do? It is because from a propagation standpoint, and due to the fact that human children are so helpless for several years, it is better for grandparents of the human species to devote energy into assisting in raising offspring of younger and stronger individuals. For the human species, the benefit of doing this is greater than the benefit of reproducing in a weaker state.


Atheist historians believe that religion, marriage, and morals were evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes for the reasons above and we can see that the human species is very unique when it comes to sexual habits.

From the evolutionary standpoint, morals are still applicable because (although modern technology and customs may mean it less so) it is detrimental to the species that a male stays home in order to raise a children. Infidelity has always remained a scientific problem. On one hand, as an individual, a male has a biological urge to propagate his genes by numbers and to produce as many offspring as possible (just as some males have homosexual tendencies). On the other hand, from a species propagation and survival standpoint, the best environment to raise those offspring is to have the father to stick around and support the mother and children. Infidelity and chances for wandering lessens the chances that the male will be supportive of his mate and their offspring (as mentioned this is the primary reason that females are ready for sex during non-fertile periods). From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it is believed the morals and marriage developed as a way to counterbalance the two for the survival of the species.

So yes, from a scientific standpoint there are arguments on why supporting traditional marriages and shunning infidelity is important. Using science, it can be proven that traditional marriage and fidelity is important to society. It can be proven scientifically that the human race should encourage traditional marriage.

No matter which angle you look at it, from either science, evolution, religion or even religion/evolution, the purpose of marriage from either an evolutionary, atheist, or religious standpoint is to provide the most stable environment for the raising of offspring. From a strictly scientific standpoint, marriage didn't evolve to be for any other purpose other than this. It wasn't for tax breaks, inheritance, etc., but developed for this sole purpose.

Anyway, there is a whole lot more to the above. This is just a very brief summary. Scientist/anthropologists have written volumes and volumes on the subject for those that want to delve further.

Also, science can’t answer questions as to what the government’s role is in all this. Science also can’t answer the question as to whether or not propagating the human race is even important. Science doesn’t try to answer the question such as “what is the purpose of life” other than to propagate a species. It can answer the question of what rights an individual has. All of those are questions that can’t be answered scientifically.

I try and stay away from most discussions, but since the question was asked if there were any non-religious arguments against it, I answered the question. If anyone knows of any errors, items needing more explaining, or knows a scientific reason for the development of gay marriage, please feel free to point out or discuss.

Scott... Are you missing the point that the reason for Gay marriage isn't about procreation but about the legal rights? That Gay people even if they are not married are not going to be procreating so it doesn't change anything if they are or are not married regarding the procreation argument. Did you also know that you don't have to be married to procreate? Did you also know that marriage in the US provides a legal contract between people giving them abilities that non married people don't get unless they create a multitude of legal contracts and even then some of them can not be done such as filing taxes as married... but you would know this since you are a lawyer right?

[rockgremlin]

Scott...... but you would know this since you are a lawyer right?

Wrong Scott. Scott CARD is the lawyer, Scott P is an engineer I believe. That said, you're going to have to lighten up on Scott P cuz we engineers can be a little dense at times.

Anyways, this discussion has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX! This is all about extending basic human rights to all people...regardless of sexual orientation.

Why is that such a difficult concept for our society to grasp? Equal rights for all citizens. Wasn't that concept what our nation was founded upon?

[Scott P]

Have your read the Prop 8 California Decision, Scott? I would think you have not, as the "studies about children" argument was pretty well shot out of the water and blown to itty bitty pieces.

Yes Tom, but that's not what I was referring to. Though I see a few of those studies with different conclusions, at this time I don't even think that there are even enough gay couples raising children to provide a meaningful study from an evolutionary standpoint.

I was speaking solely of studies concerning evolutionary differences between males and females, of which pages and pages can be written. There are scientific reasons why females and males are different (and I'm not speaking of just "private parts") and those differences evolved to provide the most stable conditions in which to raise offspring. I was speaking of studies on differences between sexes and their scientific reasons for existing and why each is advantageous. Every single difference has a verifiable scientific reason for existing.

For example, generally males are more aggressive than females. Generally males do better in analytical tests while females do better in verbal communication. Generally, females are more emotional. Overall, females even generally have better night vision while men generally have better far vision. From a scientific standpoint there are very specific reasons while these differences exist between males and females and each has to do with the survival and raising of offspring.

Of course these are all general statements and you can find many exceptions between individuals (all individuals are unique).

Since regardless of sex, a human can't spontaneously choose whether he or she would rather be more analytical or more verbal orientated (for example), overall the most stable conditions into raise offspring will always be from an intact male female relationship unless (choose any one of the following three depending on your beliefs) evolution, God, or both changes this. Whether you believe in evolution, God, both, or none of the above, I don't think it can be successfully argued that these differences don't serve a scientific purpose.

As said though, you can find exceptions. I'm sure you can go out there and find a certain male that is more verbal orientated than another female, but I'm speaking only of scientific generalities.

So yes, your "science" is tainted. Your arguments from an evolutionary viewpoint are just that - conjecture not based in science. Don't call it science, it is just bushido with a confirmation bias big fat thumb on the scale. (Bushido being a euphemism.)

Actually Tom, I intentionally used sources from people having nothing to do with religion. In fact those fundamentally religious will probably disagree with much of what has been said. If you want a list, it's easy to provide. There are plenty of books on the evolution of sexuality.

The final point was not whether or not a child today can be raised by a single parent, two dads, two moms, or whatever, but that from a scientific or anthropological viewpoint marriage evolved for the sole purpose of having and raising children. From a scientific standpoint, there never was any other purpose for marriage. It wasn't about equal rights, taxes, legal contracts, lawyers, or whatever. All of that had nothing to do with evolution.

If you disagree, what is the scientific reason for why marriage exists? What do you think the anthropological reason was and is? Since this (actually all evolution) is a subject I find fascinating, I'm always open to hearing other viewpoints and sources.

PS, I actually agree with you that in modern society that it is possible to raise a child outside a traditional marriage relationship. This hasn’t been anthropologically feasible though. Before modern societies, for children in single parent relationships, for example, the chances of offspring surviving was very low. Although anyone can say that this is just speculation, as no one alive has seen pre-history and nothing was recorded, but theories are based on “educated guesses” even if some speculation is involved.

It is my belief that (from a scientific angle) the reason why morals are changing is that it is easier for children to now survive outside what were prehistoric and historic traditional relationships. Offspring born to a single parent today has a very good chance of survival, but this was not true thousands (probably even millions) of years ago. Still, see the part about differences between males and females and research their scientific reasonings for existing. It could be argued that from a strictly survival standpoint, that they might not be quite as important in the present time as compared to the past, but scientifically they are still applicable.

Are you missing the point that the reason for Gay marriage isn't about procreation but about the legal rights?

No, legal rights and science are completely separate.

So, I ask you both from a scientific viewpoint only. Please use science only, rather than viewpoints, religion, and opinions. Why did marriage evolve and what was the scientific purpose?

Actually, notice that I said science can't answer questions about human rights, government roles, what the future of the human race should be, etc. I didn’t even cover any of that. In fact, from a scientific standpoint, heterosexual infidelity poses a bigger problem.

This is all about extending basic human rights to all people...regardless of sexual orientation.

Someone brought up atheism, so I presented some non-religious arguments for traditional marriage existing. If the question wasn't asked, I wouldn't have responded. I intentionally refrained from discussing politics, religion, and opinions. I also intentionally refrained from saying what and if anything should be done about it and what choices there should be.

[DOSS]

Actually Tom, I intentionally used sources from people having nothing to do with religion. In fact those fundamentally religious will probably disagree with much of what has been said. If you want a list, it's easy to provide. There are plenty of books on the evolution of sexuality.

The final point is not whether or not a child today can be raised by a single parent, two dads, two moms, or whatever, but that from a scientific viewpoint marriage evolved for the sole purpose of having and raising children. From a scientific standpoint, there never was any other purpose for marriage. It wasn't about rights, taxes, legal contracts, lawyers, or whatever. All of that had nothing to do with evolution.

If you disagree, what is the scientific reason for why marriage exists? What do you think the anthropological reason was and is?

PS, I actually agree with you that in modern society that it is possible to raise a child outside a traditional marriage relationship. This hasn’t been anthropologically feasible though. Before modern societies, for children in single parent relationships, for example, the chances of offspring surviving was low. Although anyone can say that this is just speculation, as no one alive has seen pre-history or history beyond their lifetime, but theories are based on “educated guesses”.

It is my belief that (from a scientific angle) the reason why morals are changing is that it is easier for children to now survive outside what were prehistoric and historic traditional relationships. Off-spring born to a single parent today has a very good chance of survival, but this was not true thousands (or probably even millions) of years ago.



No, legal rights and science are completely separate.

So, I ask you both from a scientific viewpoint only. Why did marriage evolve and what was the scientific purpose? Use science only, rather than viewpoints, religion, and opinions.

Actually, notice that I said science can't answer questions about human rights, government roles, what the future of the human race should be, etc. I didn’t even cover any of that. In fact, from a scientific standpoint, heterosexual infidelity poses a bigger problem.

Too many Scott's.. sorry engineer Scott... The thing is this isn't a "Science" issue, I don't have an answer for why marriage evolved into a legal contract in the US (and other nations) and I don't see how it hinges on this issue. No matter how hard people want to turn this into a Science or religion issue or procreation issue its not. Its not about what created marriage or why we have morals or evolution. What this is about is a secular legal binding agreement that the State of Utah (and others) have withheld from another group of people based on non secular reasons stripping these people of their rights to equality under the law.

[Scott P]

The thing is this isn't a "Science" issue

The "thing" you are speaking of isn't a science issue, but the quote below was:

I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage. Seems like all the arguments against SS marriage always have something to do with God in the end.

This is the sole question I was answering and everything said relates to the above question only and nothing else.

It was asked if there were any non-religious arguments, and I answered with affirmative and discussed some of them. If the question was asked if there were any scientific reasons in favor of gay marriage, assuming I knew them, I would have listed those too (and would invite others to do the same).

As to what my personal viewpoint on the subject was, I will not say, partially because it has changed over time and partially because I see hypocrisy among many heterosexuals. That's a whole different topic and one which I cared not to discuss in detail.

[Sombeech]

I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage. Seems like all the arguments against SS marriage always have something to do with God in the end.

I wonder if there are any atheist arguments for same sex marriage that can take place without the atheist being the FIRST to bring religion into the discussion, this thread being a great example. Of all the people I personally know that complain about religion being pushed on them constantly, they are the first to bring it up in any random situation. Always, just like this thread. It didn't start out as a religious discussion. But some people just can't stop talking about religion, and those are the same people that say they don't want to hear it.

[rockgremlin]

I wonder if there are any atheist arguments for same sex marriage that can take place without the atheist being the FIRST to bring religion into the discussion, this thread being a great example. Of all the people I personally know that complain about religion being pushed on them constantly, they are the first to bring it up in any random situation. Always, just like this thread. It didn't start out as a religious discussion. But some people just can't stop talking about religion, and those are the same people that say they don't want to hear it.

Because it is a civil issue that is being dictated by the tenets of the religion. It SHOULD be a strictly civil issue, but in reality it is heavily influenced by mainstream Christianity. If you can't see that you're pretty jaded. Hell, the ten commandments were engraved on the steps of numerous courthouses around America until the Supreme Court put a stop to that several years back. Do we still swear on Bibles in court? Do you swear to tell the truth or so help you God? Senate sessions to this day still open with prayer. Helllllo? Still think religion doesn't influence the laws of this land? How could it not?

[reverse_dyno]

What this is about is a secular legal binding agreement that the State of Utah (and others) have withheld from another group of people based on non secular reasons stripping these people of their rights to equality under the law.

I brought the point regarding atheism and arguments against SS marriage up because I often see people on both sides talking past each other. For example, DOSS seems to say that SS marriage is solely a legal contractual issue, while also arguing that there are no non-secular reasons to not extend the ability for SS couples to enter into this contract. Scott P answered my request for secular reasons to deny marriage to SS couples, DOSS and others, rather than just saying Scott P is wrong, should argue why they believe he is wrong.

If Scott P

[accadacca]

BREAKING: Attorney General Eric Holder says that the same sex marriages performed in Utah before the say will be recognized by the federal government. Same sex couples that were married in Utah before the stay can file federal taxes, but not state taxes, due to the hold on the recognition in Utah.

KSL 5 TV

[rockgremlin]

...we should then allow polygamy as it was so common in pre-industrial societies before modern Christianity took over the world.

Kody Brown likes this post.

[rockgremlin]

BREAKING: Attorney General Eric Holder says that the same sex marriages performed in Utah before the say will be recognized by the federal government. Same sex couples that were married in Utah before the stay can file federal taxes, but not state taxes, due to the hold on the recognition in Utah.

KSL 5 TV

UH OH!! Time to start fasting again!!

[ratagonia]

BREAKING: Attorney General Eric Holder says that the same sex marriages performed in Utah before the say will be recognized by the federal government. Same sex couples that were married in Utah before the stay can file federal taxes, but not state taxes, due to the hold on the recognition in Utah.

KSL 5 TV

Same sex couples married in Utah should also file their Utah state taxes as married, then sue the state if they reject it.

While the Utah Governator sets policy for the executive branch, he has a very limited role in determining what the LAW says. That is up to the courts.

He is, however, really good at spending our state tax dollars to improve his political stature with the conservative voters.

Tom

[DOSS]

I brought the point regarding atheism and arguments against SS marriage up because I often see people on both sides talking past each other. For example, DOSS seems to say that SS marriage is solely a legal contractual issue, while also arguing that there are no non-secular reasons to not extend the ability for SS couples to enter into this contract. Scott P answered my request for secular reasons to deny marriage to SS couples, DOSS and others, rather than just saying Scott P is wrong, should argue why they believe he is wrong.

If Scott P’s argues regarding evolution and marriage are correct, he has provided a secular basis for encouraging traditional marriage. Many states and countries do something similar with divorce by forcing a married couple to wait a period of time before they may dissolve their marriage. The theory being that by increasing the cost of divorce, more people will stay married, which benefits society by providing more stability for the couple’s children, which is debatable.

Everyone should also remember that sociology is a very messy science, and many hard scientists do not believe it is a science at all. For example, in a society with a large stigma against gays, children of gays will not do as well as children from traditional couples simply because people will actively discriminate against children from gay couples. There would be no easy way to separate bad parenting by the gay couple from active discrimination by society. Such discrimination would assuredly differ depending on city size and dominate political affiliation. I can easily imagine that being a child of a gay couple in Hurricane, Utah may be at a disadvantage compared to one that grows up in Seattle, Washington. If there was no difference between the success of children from gay or traditional couples, which seems to be the case, then we would know that there is no reason to use child welfare as a reason to deny SS marriages.

One issue with using evolution and cross-cultural studies to argue for not allowing SS marriage is that many pre-industrial societies allowed polygamy. If we use the argument that we humans have evolved to be in heterosexual relationships and therefore we should disallow SS marriage, we should then allow polygamy as it was so common in pre-industrial societies before modern Christianity took over the world.

I will argue that Atheism is Secular.. Science is also a religion for many people.. I am saying this should be looked at from a strictly legal standpoint.

Waiting periods for the dissolution of marriage have been implemented due to a non secular pressures.

[ratagonia]

One issue with using evolution and cross-cultural studies to argue for not allowing SS marriage is that many pre-industrial societies allowed polygamy. If we use the argument that we humans have evolved to be in heterosexual relationships and therefore we should disallow SS marriage, we should then allow polygamy as it was so common in pre-industrial societies before modern Christianity took over the world.

Why is this a problem?

When it comes right down to it, no one on either side wants a good polygamy case to wind its way through the courts, for the obvious reason that the First Amendment protects firmly-held religious activity (between consenting adults) and the Supremes would have to work really hard to maintain a ban on polygamy. Not that the Supremes aren't up to the task.

Tom

[Sombeech]

Because it is a civil issue that is being dictated by the tenets of the religion. It SHOULD be a strictly civil issue, but in reality it is heavily influenced by mainstream Christianity. If you can't see that you're pretty jaded.

Want to know what I can see? Atheists being the first to bring religion into the discussion. Period.

Your claim means that you have to be religious to oppose Gay Marriage. This is not true. I'm sorry but if you cannot get past this religious thing, you might be the jaded one. There are people who do not consider themselves to be religious, but still oppose Gay Marriage. The REAL factor is political preference, how you think the government should be involved with personal lives and inside the bedroom.

It's not religion, it's how you think the government should be involved.

It's not religion

It's not religion

It's not religion

It's political opinion.

If it's religion, I would have used religious teachings as a reference but you will find I haven't done it once. You cannot accuse me of using religion as a talking point. Somebody in this thread has a hard time dropping religion from the conversation and it's not me.

For those of you who hate talking about God but cannot control yourselves enough to leave religion out of the discussion, it means your political reasoning holds no water.